Is 50 Shades of Grey fun-bad?

[Jeivar]

I have occasionally entertained myself by getting pretty drunk and going to see movies I know are going to be terrible, such as The Happening and Aliens vs. Predator: Requiem, viewing them as comedies.

I've heard nothing but bad things about 50 Shades, but can one at least laugh at it given the right mindset?

[SaintRidley]

One of my officemates said that the only positive for her was that there was "basically a nipple in every scene." So make of that what you will.

[Kitten Champion]

I've mostly heard it was pretty boring.

[Haruki-kun]

I haven't seen it, but it had a 25% on Rotten Tomatoes, so I think it's probably just bad.

[Emperor Ing]

Someone could correct me, but I think 'fun' bad begins at 10%.

[Haruki-kun]

Someone could correct me, but I think 'fun' bad begins at 10%.

10% and higher? Or 10% and lower? :smalltongue:

[thorgrim29]

I think it goes if(%<11;"fun";if(%>69;"fun";"not fun"))

It's possible that I have been building Excel spreadsheets all week

[golentan]

I think it goes if(%<11;"fun";if(%>69;"fun";"not fun"))

It's possible that I have been building Excel spreadsheets all week

It gets worse again if you get low enough though.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/so_bad_its_worse.png

[Emperor Ing]

10% and higher? Or 10% and lower? :smalltongue:

10% total score on RottenTomatoes or lower :smalltongue:

[Bulldog Psion]

It gets worse again if you get low enough though.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/so_bad_its_worse.png

That's a good chart. :smallbiggrin:

You know, I've thought about watching the Star Wars Holiday Special but have never had the courage. :smallwink:

[golentan]

That's a good chart. :smallbiggrin:

You know, I've thought about watching the Star Wars Holiday Special but have never had the courage. :smallwink:

The alt text on that comic was "You think it's so legendarily bad that you'll torrent it and sit through it just for the Kitschy nerd cred. I too once thought as you did."

[Wayac]

Might I suggest going to see Kingsman instead?

But on topic, I read a review somewhere that said "I was expecting more sex" so I think that bodes ill for 50 Shades.

[Metahuman1]

I'll second going to see Kingsmen, or 7th Son, or Paddington, instead.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I think the general consensus is that it's horrid-bad.

[Rater202]

They made a movie about a Book that is horribly offensive, depicts sexual and domestic abuse as "okay" becuase the abuser hides behind BDSM(Which is why it's offensive) and because "She loves him and can change him":smallyuk:, the two main characters are literally Bella and Edward from Twilight with the serial numbers filed off(Fifty Shades was originally a Twilight Fanfic, after all), and thus have all of those problems.

Does it sound Fun bad or Horribad?

[Citrakayah]

They made a movie about a Book that is horribly offensive, depicts sexual and domestic abuse as "okay" becuase the abuser hides behind BDSM(Which is why it's offensive) and because "She loves him and can change him":smallyuk:, the two main characters are literally Bella and Edward from Twilight with the serial numbers filed off(Fifty Shades was originally a Twilight Fanfic, after all), and thus have all of those problems.

Does it sound Fun bad or Horribad?

It sounds prohibited by the Geneva Convention, is what it sounds like.

[Bulldog Psion]

It sounds prohibited by the Geneva Convention, is what it sounds like.

Probably the Treaty of Westphalia, too.

Honestly, though, my sixth sense is telling me this thread probably won't survive for very long.

[BannedInSchool]

Honestly, though, my sixth sense is telling me this thread probably won't survive for very long.
What if we make it about teddy bears?
For those who don't know, Vermont Teddy Bears made a 50 Shades of Grey bear.

[Traab]

That's a good chart. :smallbiggrin:

You know, I've thought about watching the Star Wars Holiday Special but have never had the courage. :smallwink:

You could always watch this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS6PwQcCIXo) instead. Its the nostalgia critic review of the star wars holiday special.

[Starwulf]

I haven't seen it, but it had a 25% on Rotten Tomatoes, so I think it's probably just bad.

Meh, I would never rely on Rotten Tomatoes to determine whether or not I want to see a movie. I can't count how many movies that have 5, 10, 20, 30% ratings on there that I absolutely love. Movie-watching is absolutely one of those "Different Strokes for Different Folks" kinda thing, because in the same breath I can't begin to name how many movies that get 80-100% ratings on there that I think are some of the most wretched, abysmal pieces of movie-making ever. I literally give 0 credence to Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes, because if I did some of the best movies I've ever seen I'd have never looked at.

That being said, 50 shades isn't the kind of movie I'm interested in. The only real way to determine if it's for you OP is to find as many trailers and user reviews as you can and go from there.

[Haruki-kun]

I agree, because I too have loved movies with low ratings and hated movies with high ratings on Rotten Tomatoes. However, if used as a guideline, it can be pretty good. If a movie has an abysmally low score on Rotten Tomatoes, chances are I won't like it. It's perfectly possible that I'll see through its faults and love it, but I probably won't.

Because of this, and in the case of this particular movie, I'll take Rotten Tomatoes's word for it and avoid seeing it altogether, methinks. I don't think I'll get much fun out of making snarky comments during the movie.

[Flickerdart]

Might I suggest going to see Kingsman instead?
Agreed - Kingsman is very clearly aware that it's not a great movie, and has fun with itself, which manages to make it quite good in its own way. From what I've heard, 50 Shades tries to take itself seriously, with obvious results.

[JoshL]

You know, I've thought about watching the Star Wars Holiday Special but have never had the courage. :smallwink:

True story: my earliest memory is of the Star Wars Holiday Special. From the one and only time it aired. For years I thought I was kinda crazy until I figured it out. I was a little over a year old, so obviously I don't remember it well. But I did remember seeing the first film when I was 3 at my uncle's house before going to see Empire the next day (another memory I thought I had made up until I learned that they released A New Hope on Super 8) and being really excited, waiting for the other wookies to show up and confused when they didn't.

I'm not sure if that story is cool or embarassing, or, most likely, both.

FWIW the special is terrible, but it's not THAT hard to sit through, and the animated segment is pretty fun.

And, yes, I'm continuing the thread-derailment for all the reasons that Rater202 mentioned.

[Dragonus45]

They made a movie about a Book that is horribly offensive, depicts sexual and domestic abuse as "okay" becuase the abuser hides behind BDSM(Which is why it's offensive) and because "She loves him and can change him":smallyuk:, the two main characters are literally Bella and Edward from Twilight with the serial numbers filed off(Fifty Shades was originally a Twilight Fanfic, after all), and thus have all of those problems.

Does it sound Fun bad or Horribad?

Sounds like your average romance novel.

[Anonymouswizard]

Agreed - Kingsman is very clearly aware that it's not a great movie, and has fun with itself, which manages to make it quite good in its own way. From what I've heard, 50 Shades tries to take itself seriously, with obvious results.

I've wanted to see that ever since I heard the hilariously 'English' accent. It just looked like a great laugh.

With 50 Shades I'm just waiting for the sequel to the trilogy about breaking out of an abusive relationship. Because it's sad when XKCD has a better representation of BDSM than the novel series about it (chemists pick the worst safe words).

[Cheesegear]

They made a movie about a Book that is horribly offensive, depicts sexual and domestic abuse as "okay" becuase the abuser hides behind BDSM(Which is why it's offensive) and because "She loves him and can change him":smallyuk:, the two main characters are literally Bella and Edward from Twilight with the serial numbers filed off(Fifty Shades was originally a Twilight Fanfic, after all), and thus have all of those problems.

The main problem with the movie, is that it's a movie. You can't show inner monologues on-screen. Whatever redeeming qualities Anastasia has in the book (I haven't read it, I wouldn't know), she completely loses by moving to the silver screen. Since now we - or I, rather - don't know Ana's throught processes like we would get to in the book - thus personalising her, and in doing so having us, the audience emotionally invested in her - what happens in the movie is that we only get to hear what Ana says, which only serves to come off as desperate, delusional and one dimensional, as her character is defined by how she chooses to relate to the male character, which many people view as offensive.

Bella actually has a role in Twilight outside of her love for Edward. It's flimsy, and it only really happens towards the end, but she eventually has agency - sort of. I've at least read the Twlight books, and I know where the movie is coming from and I appreciate the movie for what it is, with the tacit understanding that I am not Twlight's target audience. I haven't read 50 Shades... because frankly I'm not even remotely interested in it's material. But whatever it is in the book that made it sell so well is definitely lost in the book-to-screen transition, and the script is just bad with a capital TERRIBLE, and I can see why the producers of 50 Shades... couldn't get any high-profile actors to play a role in what is clearly a very high-profile movie, any actor with a brain should have jumped on the 50 Shades bandwagon with detachable hype-train as soon as it was announced. The obvious answer as to why no high-profile actor is connected to the movie is because they probably read the script and were obviously clued into the fact that the movie would bomb long before we - the public audience - would find out.

50 Shades is just bad. Script is bad. Acting is awful. Plot is apparently mildly offensive to those who care about the topics presented. I, personally wasn't offended by anything. But I know bad acting and a bad script when I hear it. So, even before you get into what is and isn't offensive, it's still a terrible movie - and not the kind you can laugh at, either.

[Eldan]

Actually, the few positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes seem to indicate that she's more likeable in the movie, mainly because the terrible inner monologue is gone.

[Cheesegear]

Actually, the few positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes seem to indicate that she's more likeable in the movie, mainly because the terrible inner monologue is gone.

Oh lawdy. I like Bella from Twilight in a one-dimensional blank-slate sort of way. I see what the writers were going for. But, as I said the 50 Shades movie makes Ana sound desperate and delusional, and, well, ignorant. I can't imagine any way that the book could make her less likeable.

[Eldan]

Oh lawdy. I like Bella from Twilight in a one-dimensional blank-slate sort of way. I see what the writers were going for. But, as I said the 50 Shades movie makes Ana sound desperate and delusional, and, well, ignorant. I can't imagine any way that the book could make her less likeable.

I've only seen a few passages read aloud by people on Youtube (mostly drunk male twenty-somethings, it's funny), but basically, she's all the things you describe, while also loving it and talking in what she probably thinks is flowery prose.

[Thialfi]

I took the wife to a showing on Valentine's Day.

The Bad

It was poorly written garbage with a laughable plot and outrageously bad dialogue. The male lead is one of the worst actors I have seen in quite a long time.

The Good

The female lead is actually quite good. She invests herself in the story and really sells it. She is perfectly cast for the role as a girl-next-door wholesome beauty. Dakota Johnson should have a bright future in films. Her talent greatly outshines everyone else in the film. I also found her very attractive and she's naked quite a bit. Some of the sex scenes are actually quite hot. As bad as the male lead is, I freely admit that he is good looking. If you are looking for some man candy, he will probably satisfy your sweet tooth.

[Anonymouswizard]

I've only seen a few passages read aloud by people on Youtube (mostly drunk male twenty-somethings, it's funny), but basically, she's all the things you describe, while also loving it and talking in what she probably thinks is flowery prose.

Also thinking in what she probably thinks is flowery prose. Did EL James read anything on how to write? One of my friends got me to read a bit of the second novel, and I got to the end of a sentence before realising that the prose is worse than most non-native English speakers. Oh my.

The breaker for if I even attempt to watch the film though is this: are the euphemisms left in? And how much of her inner goddess do we get to see? There are some feats we need to see.

[Citrakayah]

Honestly, though, my sixth sense is telling me this thread probably won't survive for very long.

Hopefully someone will tell us if we start going into forbidden territory.

[golentan]

If you want a fun 50 Shades of Grey experience, watch George Takei read it. Takes 2 minutes, is hilarious.

[Iruka]

As bad as the male lead is, I freely admit that he is good looking. If you are looking for some man candy, he will probably satisfy your sweet tooth.

Interesting. I found his looks utterly disappointing.

[Thialfi]

Interesting. I found his looks utterly disappointing.

Your mileage may vary. I guess a heterosexual male is probably not the best source for attractiveness in dudes. My standard is whether or not that I would gladly trade appearances with the man in question. Sadly, my wife usually agrees with my assessment. "Yes, honey, I really would like it if you looked like Channing Tatum, Michael Fassbender, Adam Levine, either of the Hemsworth siblings, Hugh Jackman, or many others."

Her candidness does not extend to her looks though. I wisely refrain from suggesting that Kate Upton, Scarlet Johannson, Dakota Johnson, Rihanna, or many others might be more attractive than her.

[The Glyphstone]

The obvious answer as to why no high-profile actor is connected to the movie is because they probably read the script and were obviously clued into the fact that the movie would bomb long before we - the public audience - would find out.


Though since it hasn't bombed - rather, it's making unfairly obscene quantities of money ($270million on a $40million budget as of 2 days ago), I suspect it's more of an avoidance of wanting their name associated with its subject matter. Showgirls didn't help the careers of anyone involved - then again, Showgirls really did bomb, so maybe my point isn't as strong as I thought it was.

[Kato]

If you want a fun 50 Shades of Grey experience, watch George Takei read it. Takes 2 minutes, is hilarious.

... Oh my. :smallbiggrin:


Yeah, I... I know quite a few thirty-ish women who quite enjoy the book(s) and so far I haven't gotten myself to tell them why it is horrible, also because I haven't read it. I feel I should read it myself before judging it but then that never stopped me from critizising Twilight either... I guess I would actually read it if I had a free copy and I had something at hand to punch when it becomes too bad..

[Anonymouswizard]

If you want a fun 50 Shades of Grey experience, watch George Takei read it. Takes 2 minutes, is hilarious.

Yes! It's the only way to find any of it actually erotic, but that might just be Take I.


... Oh my. :smallbiggrin:


Yeah, I... I know quite a few thirty-ish women who quite enjoy the book(s) and so far I haven't gotten myself to tell them why it is horrible, also because I haven't read it. I feel I should read it myself before judging it but then that never stopped me from critizising Twilight either... I guess I would actually read it if I had a free copy and I had something at hand to punch when it becomes too bad..

One of my friends recently got out of an abusive relationship, so I've seen what it does to people. Rest assured that criticising fifty shades is more justified than criticising twilight.

[thorgrim29]

Stick to facts: It's twilight fanfic with the serial numbers filed off, it trivializes and even fetishes rape and abuse and it's horribly written (which you can see very easily just by reading a few pages.

[SiuiS]

Sounds like your average romance novel.

Does this come from the trope or from actually reading romance novels? Depending on whether you've selected the sub genre that does indeed specifically cater to these fantasies or not, I think you'll find the genre as a whole is not so bad.

[Rater202]

Does this come from the trope or from actually reading romance novels? Depending on whether you've selected the sub genre that does indeed specifically cater to these fantasies or not, I think you'll find the genre as a whole is not so bad.

Fifty Shades doesn't so much cater to those fantasies as it hides behind those fantasies to justify rape and abuse.

[golentan]

Fifty Shades doesn't so much cater to those fantasies as it hides behind those fantasies to justify rape and abuse.

Apparently at one point she uses the safeword to less than no effect... It's impossible for me to think of a better example of how horrifically this story portrays the fetish community.

[Tiki Snakes]

Fifty Shades doesn't so much cater to those fantasies as it hides behind those fantasies to justify rape and abuse.

It's ascended fan-fiction. Which is to say that it presumably started out entirely as a piece of entirely amateur writing catering specifically and exclusively to one persons own fantasies; The Author. At least, so I would presume.
Whatever else, that is presumably the case. One can assume that anything fetishised would be fetishised because it is her fetish, rather than being about justifying, promoting or understanding anything in particular and I'd be surprised if there was any claim that she is any kind of authority on anything involved in the book.

I'm not sure any of that should or could change any value judgements you might make about the book and/or film, but it feels like a couple of important distinctions to bear in mind regardless.

[Rater202]

Whatever else, that is presumably the case. One can assume that anything fetishised would be fetishised because it is her fetish, rather than being about justifying, promoting or understanding anything in particular and I'd be surprised if there was any claim that she is any kind of authority on anything involved in the book.

I'm not quite sure what your argument is here.

Are you suggesting that the Author fetisizes BDSM, or that she fetishizes rape and abuse?

In the first case, I expect if that were the case she'd understand that the Dom stops when the Sub gives the safe word.

In the second case... uughh.

[Shekinah]

If you didn't like the book, you might like the movie for the actress who plays Ana.

If you didn't read the book, you might enjoy the scenes Ana are in, but find the rest to be boring.

If you did like the book, you'll be mad that it wasn't NC-17.

[t209]

Isn't the movie a glorified pornographic film, albeit a badly made even by its standard?
Edit: Just hope someone decided to follow it by making Lost Girls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Girls) without reading the graphic novels.

[Cheesegear]

Though since it hasn't bombed - rather, it's making unfairly obscene quantities of money ($270million on a $40million budget as of 2 days ago), I suspect it's more of an avoidance of wanting their name associated with its subject matter. Showgirls didn't help the careers of anyone involved - then again, Showgirls really did bomb, so maybe my point isn't as strong as I thought it was.

So what you're saying, is that 50 Shades is Transformers. Critically terrible, but, then you realise that the majority of people don't have tertiary level education.

[Flickerdart]

So what you're saying, is that 50 Shades is Transformers. Critically terrible, but, then you realise that the majority of people don't have tertiary level education.
What does education have to do with taste?

[Dragonus45]

Does this come from the trope or from actually reading romance novels? Depending on whether you've selected the sub genre that does indeed specifically cater to these fantasies or not, I think you'll find the genre as a whole is not so bad.

Bit of both, I tended to read a lot of romance novels when I was younger, and I still do on occasion especially some of the trashier Shoujo Manga like gravitation. Not all of them are 50 Shades bad but almost all of them tend to have some aspects to a varying degree.


Fifty Shades doesn't so much cater to those fantasies as it hides behind those fantasies to justify rape and abuse.

I would argue you have it backwards, it tries to take the fantasies a lot farther than most do and then tries to hide behind BDSM to say its not really abuse. The irony being it would probably offend me less if it didn't decide it wanted to drag the BDSM community down with it.

[Cheesegear]

What does education have to do with taste?

You'd be surprised.

[golentan]

You'd be surprised.

Or you might be. I know few people who enjoy terrible movies as unabashedly as my father and some of his fellow professors...

Yeah, it's anecdotal...

[Renegade Paladin]

Oh lawdy. I like Bella from Twilight in a one-dimensional blank-slate sort of way. I see what the writers were going for. But, as I said the 50 Shades movie makes Ana sound desperate and delusional, and, well, ignorant. I can't imagine any way that the book could make her less likeable.

This should give you an idea. (http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/340987215) In fact, that's required reading for anyone who is even thinking of reading those books or watching the movie.

[tomandtish]

Disclaimer: I have not read or seen 50 Shades of Grey. A friend of mine in the BDSM community has read it and gave me his take. Unfortunately I have read all four Twilight novels (don't judge me, they were a gift from my grandmother).

The issue isn't necessarily even enjoying terrible movies. There are plenty of terrible movies I enjoy (I consider myself reasonably well educated). The bigger concern is movies that are terrible in part because of a horrific message.

And that's the problem with both Twilight and Shades. They both present behavior that is non-consensual, illegal, and dangerous, and then declare that anyone who doesn't agree that it is romantic is wrong and small-minded. Twilight has a stalker who is entering a person's room uninvited to watch them sleep. Shades has a rapist by any definition of the word I can find. And these are supposed to be romantic heroes.

[Kitten Champion]

What does education have to do with taste?

Well, education is indicative of your socioeconomic status and your socioeconomic status is relevant for determining your tastes. Not a total predictor obviously, but certainly there's a relationship.

[Solaris]

Isn't the movie a glorified pornographic film, albeit a badly made even by its standard?
Edit: Just hope someone decided to follow it by making Lost Girls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Girls) without reading the graphic novels.

As well as doing the BDSM equivalent of the Starship Troopers movie, yes. The 50 Shades of Grey author has about as much familiarity with the BDSM subculture as the Starship Troopers movie did with the book: That is to say, none whatsoever and unjustifiably proudly so.

The fact that she's made money publishing her rape fantasy simply boggles my mind. The fact that it's to the tune of millions of dollars... well, it's not like I could really hate humanity more, but it sure makes me want to try.

When I finally snap and scour the globe of life, movies like this will be humanity's epitaph as a warning to other intelligences in the galaxy. I'm no social justice warrior, and generally make fun of them, and I think this movie and the book it's based on are utter and complete garbage so lacking in worth and value that people who watch and read them are less for having done so. Skip the book. Skip the movie. Watch anything else, read anything else, instead of this worthless, terrible mommy porn.

[Citrakayah]

As well as doing the BDSM equivalent of the Starship Troopers movie, yes. The 50 Shades of Grey author has about as much familiarity with the BDSM subculture as the Starship Troopers movie did with the book: That is to say, none whatsoever and unjustifiably proudly so.

The fact that she's made money publishing her rape fantasy simply boggles my mind. The fact that it's to the tune of millions of dollars... well, it's not like I could really hate humanity more, but it sure makes me want to try.

When I finally snap and scour the globe of life, movies like this will be humanity's epitaph as a warning to other intelligences in the galaxy. I'm no social justice warrior, and generally make fun of them, and I think this movie and the book its based on are utter and complete garbage so lacking in worth and value that people who watch and read them are less for having done so. Skip the book. Skip the movie. Watch anything else, read anything else, instead of this worthless, terrible mommy porn.

For a brief, brief second, I thought that you said, "The 50 Shades of Grey director has about as much familiarity with the book as the Starship Troopers movie did with the book: That is to say, none whatsoever and unjustifiably proudly so."

At which point, naturally, I asked myself if this is an example of a movie where quality would go up the more they deviated from the source material. I have little doubt the answer is yes.

[crayzz]

The only part that was remotely enjoyable to me was when Anastasia sits down to look over the BDSM contract, stripping out things she doesn't like with impunity while Christian gets more and more flustered at not being able to do anything about it. I may have enjoyed the scene only because the story was explained to me like Anastasia had no effective agency: seeing her draw an iron clad line and dare him to challenge it was nice.

Other than that it was mildly to extremely creepy. Unless you have a thing for power fantasies, well...


The fact that she's made money publishing her rape fantasy simply boggles my mind. The fact that it's to the tune of millions of dollars... well, it's not like I could really hate humanity more, but it sure makes me want to try.

When I finally snap and scour the globe of life, movies like this will be humanity's epitaph as a warning to other intelligences in the galaxy. I'm no social justice warrior, and generally make fun of them, and I think this movie and the book its based on are utter and complete garbage so lacking in worth and value that people who watch and read them are less for having done so.

I am sometimes called a social justice warrior, with varying accuracy depending on the implications intended, and I have less problem with the book than most, it seems. It's not at all surprising that it made money: it's porn marketed as mainstream at women i.e. it's porn that became highly visible by being labelled as not!porn to an under-served market.

"...I think this movie and the book its based on are utter and complete garbage so lacking in worth and value that people who watch and read them are less for having done so."

I sincerely hope that is hyperbole.

[otakuryoga]

But on topic, I read a review somewhere that said "I was expecting more sex" so I think that bodes ill for 50 Shades.

especially since that is pretty much all the book/movie has going for it......

[Cheesegear]

Well, education is indicative of your socioeconomic status...

Education is indicative of your ability to form informed opinions and decide what is good and what isn't. 'Sheeple' do not have informed opinions, and like what they are told to like because they have no other frame of reference for a thing, except for what they are shown, via hype-trains and mass media.

A lot of people watch 50 Shades for the sexy-times, and take at face-value what the movie is presenting. But people without education (wherever they happened to get it), aren't going to look for deeper meaning about spousal abuse and whether or not Christian and Ana are having a 'real' BDSM relationship. The message that 50 Shades presents is that sexy-times are pretty good, and you should want to have them.

We often forget that a lot of social media is just a giant echo chamber and does not reflect the views of the silent majority.

[Solaris]

For a brief, brief second, I thought that you said, "The 50 Shades of Grey director has about as much familiarity with the book as the Starship Troopers movie did with the book: That is to say, none whatsoever and unjustifiably proudly so."

At which point, naturally, I asked myself if this is an example of a movie where quality would go up the more they deviated from the source material. I have little doubt the answer is yes.

It couldn't help but improve.


The only part that was remotely enjoyable to me was when Anastasia sits down to look over the BDSM contract, stripping out things she doesn't like with impunity while Christian gets more and more flustered at not being able to do anything about it. I may have enjoyed the scene only because the story was explained to me like Anastasia had no effective agency: seeing her draw an iron clad line and dare him to challenge it was nice.

Other than that it was mildly to extremely creepy. Unless you have a thing for power fantasies, well...

I agree with this. It is nice to see they put something like that in the movie. Too bad he ignored it at his convenience, neh?
Contracts like that are major warning signs for me. Experiences may differ, but I've only seen them used to coerce and punish the sub, not limit the dom.


I am sometimes called a social justice warrior, with varying accuracy depending on the implications intended, and I have less problem with the book than most, it seems. It's not at all surprising that it made money: it's porn marketed as mainstream at women i.e. it's porn that became highly visible by being labelled as not!porn to an under-served market.

Imagine a veteran's reaction to seeing soldiers in a movie portrayed as being all vile, evil, murderous beings, or a priest's reaction to a movie portraying all clergymen as pedophiles.
That's kinda my reaction to Christian Grey. I get that it's supposed to be a fantasy and all, but that doesn't mean I have to like or tolerate it.

I'm less surprised and more profoundly disappointed in Americans.
It's a disappointment that's started and continued by Twilight and high school years spent watching girls go from one terrible-for-them relationship after another in between denouncing guys as the most awful thing to ever walk the Earth.


"...I think this movie and the book its based on are utter and complete garbage so lacking in worth and value that people who watch and read them are less for having done so."

I sincerely hope that is hyperbole.

Maybe a little.

[Citrakayah]

It couldn't help but improve.

What if everyone talked in textspeak? And stuck "lol" to the end of random sentences, often ones for which humor would be inappropriate? As an example, "yeah he raped me it sucked lol."

[Solaris]

What if everyone talked in textspeak? And stuck "lol" to the end of random sentences, often ones for which humor would be inappropriate? As an example, "yeah he raped me it sucked lol."

...
Even then.

[Starwulf]

Or you might be. I know few people who enjoy terrible movies as unabashedly as my father and some of his fellow professors...

Yeah, it's anecdotal...

Meh, so is any evidence anyone in this thread is going to offer to the theory that taste is related to higher level education. Quite frankly I find the idea so absurd and (mildly) offensive that I laughed out loud, literally, when I read the first person who suggested having a college education(or lack thereof) affects your taste in movies.


Education is indicative of your ability to form informed opinions and decide what is good and what isn't. 'Sheeple' do not have informed opinions, and like what they are told to like because they have no other frame of reference for a thing, except for what they are shown, via hype-trains and mass media.

A lot of people watch 50 Shades for the sexy-times, and take at face-value what the movie is presenting. But people without education (wherever they happened to get it), aren't going to look for deeper meaning about spousal abuse and whether or not Christian and Ana are having a 'real' BDSM relationship. The message that 50 Shades presents is that sexy-times are pretty good, and you should want to have them.

We often forget that a lot of social media is just a giant echo chamber and does not reflect the views of the silent majority.

I find your whole theory a bit "off" to be honest. My wife has 5 years college, 3 for being a nurse, and when she decided she didn't want to do it and switched to another (related) program 2 years for it, and while she makes informed decisions like you would suggest, I have 0 years of college education, and on any subject I'm interested in, or feel compelled to have an opinion on, I make it a point to study all matter related to it, and quite honestly, so do the majority of my friends, most of whom you(and many others) would likely go "Lolredneckidiot", but yet they are the most informed people I know on the stuff that they are interested in. Education as far as I'm concerned has squat to do with being a "sheeple". So maybe in your experience the opposite is true, but in mine, being a sheeple is a mindset gained by having everything handed to you, more likely to infect those of wealth(not the people who earned the wealth). Those of us who are poor(not always by choice either ><) are imo, far more likely to NOT be sheeple, because who wants to be poor and considered stupid at the same time?

[Cheesegear]

Quite frankly I find the idea so absurd and (mildly) offensive that I laughed at loud, literally, when I read the first person who suggested having a college education (or lack thereof) affects your taste in movies.

If I started talking about the differences in the ways people with college educations are taught to think, and the ways that people without educations don't, the thread would get really offensive, really fast. Suffice it to say that it does matter. Some things - anything - can be critically analysed as failures, yet remain totally commercially viable and rake in huge profits. Education doesn't seem like it effects personal taste (because it sounds stupid, right?), but it does.

For an extremely simplified version, you only need to look at things you liked as a child, but don't anymore. Because now you know better. The thing you liked didn't change. You changed.

[crayzz]

Imagine a veteran's reaction to seeing soldiers in a movie portrayed as being all vile, evil, murderous beings, or a priest's reaction to a movie portraying all clergymen as pedophiles. That's kinda my reaction to Christian Grey. I get that it's supposed to be a fantasy and all, but that doesn't mean I have to like or tolerate it.

I mean, I'm outside the BDSM community, so maybe my opinion isn't worth much. But I can get access to depictions of more abusive relationships with trivial ease, and I don't see anything wrong with that. If that's your fantasy, then that's your fantasy, and fiction isn't limited by basic health requirements like live humans are. There's no reason to go limiting how abusive the relationship is, because the reader (or watcher, in this case) is the only mind that matters, and they generally have the ultimate safe word in simply closing the book/leaving the theatre/turning off the television.

Like, if you have a fantasy of being controlled an abused, having a safe word that is respected is antithetical to that fantasy: that's measure of control you maintain, when the whole point is to have control taken from you. You need that control in real life, in case things go to far, and anyone who disrespects that is certainly not worth your time. But in fiction?

I feel like when people complain about how unrealistic a depiction of BDSM Fifty shades shows us, you can make the same argument about anything. It'd be like martial arts masters complaining about kung fu movies showing impossible moves, except those moves are the point. People want to see those awesome moves, reality and feasibility be damned. People want a story about abuse and loss of control, and there's no reason to not make that loss of control absolute.

The implication that Grey is messed up because he was abused as a teen and that's why he does what he does is unacceptable, though. The greater trend of people not realizing that the books and movie depict non-consent fantasies creeps me out and ruins any chance I had of enjoying the movie. The whole time I'm thinking, "Holy crap some guy might think this is acceptable in a normal relationship," or "Holy crap some girl might get treated like this and not recognize the abuse," but that problem is way bigger than Fifty Shades of Grey.

[Starwulf]

If I started talking about the differences in the ways people with college educations are taught to think, and the ways that people without educations don't, the thread would get really offensive, really fast. Suffice it to say that it does matter. Some things - anything - can be critically analysed as failures, yet remain totally commercially viable and rake in huge profits. Education doesn't seem like it effects personal taste (because it sounds stupid, right?), but it does.

For an extremely simplified version, you only need to look at things you liked as a child, but don't anymore. Because now you know better. The thing you liked didn't change. You changed.

Then going by your "simplified" version, I must still be a child inside, since the large majority of things I enjoyed as a child, I still enjoy now, including but not limited to: Reading, playing video games, watching cartoons, play boardgames, and yes, I will even still break out the legos once in a while, or hell, even my old musclemen, just because it's fun to do so. But yet, I've changed quite drastically as I've gotten older and moved on from being a kid. I no longer let people bully around me, I challenge things I find wrong, I do various adult related activities, I'm far more responsible.

Sorry, but I just don't believe you can judge a persons enjoyment of certain forms of entertainment based on their education, not even a little. And just because people don't pick apart films like you suggested in an earlier post, isn't because they aren't college educated either. Sometimes, some people just watch films SOLELY for entertainment it brings.

Feels odd, getting into such a discussion on the thread of a book and movie I find abhorrent, but such is life sometimes.

And again, my wife has 5 years of college education, and yet she still finds just as much enjoyment as the "unwashed, uneducated masses" do in "critical failures", like Transformers for instance, or Twilight, which happens to be among her favorite movies and books(because ya know, some people don't find the need to critique everything and go "Omg, sparkly vampires").

[Cheesegear]

Sorry, but I just don't believe you can judge a persons enjoyment of certain forms of entertainment based on their education, not even a little.

Unfortunately, psychology is weird, and you kind of can. However, as with everything dealing with psychology, it wont necessarily apply to everyone in the same demographic, but it applies enough to be a thing that kind of exists.

[Starwulf]

Unfortunately, psychology is weird, and you kind of can. However, as with everything dealing with psychology, it wont necessarily apply to everyone in the same demographic, but it applies enough to be a thing that kind of exists.

And here will be where I bow out. It seems like every argument/debate I get into on the net lately has the other person apparently be some kind of expert in psychology who knows exactly what they are talking about. Not even aiming this at you Cheesegear, I have literally(I just went and counted) 6 arguments/debates spread across 3 separate forums in the last week where the other person started talking about psychology and either inferred(in a manner such as you are), or just outright said "I'm a psychologist so I know what I'm talking about". Oddly enough, none of them(including yourself, but honestly at this point I truly don't care enough to ask you to do so) have provided actual studies on the subject matter being discussed, just using the "psychology says it's so, so it's so" bit.

[Cheesegear]

Oddly enough, none of them (including yourself, but honestly at this point I truly don't care enough to ask you to do so) have provided actual studies on the subject matter being discussed, just using the "psychology says it's so, so it's so" bit.

I can't provide a study. I'll admit that. But what I can say with confidence (or regurgitate, rather, as a thing that I know I was taught) is that during my Film/TV Studies we started studying demographics (and now I will always talk about Target Audiences, Critical Audiences and General Audiences forever), and one of the predictors that came up when talking about whether a person will be interested (not necessarily 'enjoy', that's a whole different thing, which I've also talked about before) in a Film/TV show is whether or not they have a University education. They don't need to have completed their degree, they just need to have been taught the way of thinking that revolves around positive/negative arguments and not taking things at face value. A lot of people without said thinking patterns wont look that closely at a movie's deeper meanings - not everyone needs to analyse everything, you've said it yourself. But, people with educations are more likely (no, I can't provide a stat by how much) to criticise, nitpick and otherwise look for flaws. Wheras a person who doesn't think this way will take the movie as given.

Again, I have no study. I can't prove it. But I will say it with confidence.

[Starwulf]

I can't provide a study. I'll admit that. But what I can say with confidence (or regurgitate, rather, as a thing that I know I was taught) is that during my Film/TV Studies we started studying demographics (and now I will always talk about Target Audiences, Critical Audiences and General Audiences forever), and one of the predictors that came up when talking about whether a person will be interested (not necessarily 'enjoy', that's a whole different thing, which I've also talked about before) in a Film/TV show is whether or not they have a University education. They don't need to have completed their degree, they just need to have been taught the way of thinking that revolves around positive/negative arguments and not taking things at face value. A lot of people without said thinking patterns wont look that closely at a movie's deeper meanings - not everyone needs to analyse everything, you've said it yourself. But, people with educations are more likely (no, I can't provide a stat by how much) to criticise, nitpick and otherwise look for flaws. Wheras a person who doesn't think this way will take the movie as given.

Again, I have no study. I can't prove it. But I will say it with confidence.

I can say with confidence that some time in the next 5 years that I WILL win the lottery, the Megamillions at that, but I can't prove it. See what I'm getting at? You can say anything you want with confidence, but if you can't back it up with proof, it means nothing in the end. Anyone can claim anything "with confidence", it doesn't mean it's true.

[Cheesegear]

in the next 5 years that I WILL win the lottery, the Megamillions at that, but I can't prove it.

That's because you're trying to prove an absolute. You COULD win the lottery in the next five years. Demographics are not an absolute, but they're enough of a 'thing that exists' to matter. Not to you, not to everyone. But to enough.

[Solaris]

I mean, I'm outside the BDSM community, so maybe my opinion isn't worth much.

Anyone who tries to dismiss someone's opinion because they're an outsider looking in is doing so because they're incapable of defending their own position and deserves the mockery they get.
Never let someone tell you that just because you're not part of their community or because you haven't done what they've done, you don't have a right to voice your opinion.[/soapbox]


Like, if you have a fantasy of being controlled an abused, having a safe word that is respected is antithetical to that fantasy: that's measure of control you maintain, when the whole point is to have control taken from you. You need that control in real life, in case things go to far, and anyone who disrespects that is certainly not worth your time. But in fiction?

I feel like when people complain about how unrealistic a depiction of BDSM Fifty shades shows us, you can make the same argument about anything. It'd be like martial arts masters complaining about kung fu movies showing impossible moves, except those moves are the point. People want to see those awesome moves, reality and feasibility be damned. People want a story about abuse and loss of control, and there's no reason to not make that loss of control absolute.

My biggest problem isn't the inaccuracy so much as it is the fact that it's glorifying rape and abuse. I'm okay with movies being stupid about or just playing fast-and-loose with how things work; they're movies, that's what they're supposed to do. I don't care that Daniel-san should have gotten his butt handed to him for the Crane Kick at the end of The Karate Kid - it's a movie.
It's when the writer takes this fiction and uses it to glorify something so execrable without having the guts to just come out and admit it is what it is... then it's not so harmless, because as you said,


The greater trend of people not realizing that the books and movie depict non-consent fantasies creeps me out and ruins any chance I had of enjoying the movie. The whole time I'm thinking, "Holy crap some guy might think this is acceptable in a normal relationship," or "Holy crap some girl might get treated like this and not recognize the abuse," but that problem is way bigger than Fifty Shades of Grey.

I see people doing that. This isn't a good forum for going into any details, but Christian Grey is not unique. Anastasia is not unique, either; I've known more than a few girls who made the mistake of letting themselves be vulnerable to predators like Grey and been burned in real life. I've encountered more than one abusive and controlling a-hole disguising himself as a suave Christian Grey. I suppose I could just say "It's just a story, it's not reality" and leave it be, but the sheer number of people who find themselves in abusive relationships and think that's the way things should be... well, there are some things that are intolerable. Leaving this dead horse un-beaten is one of them.

[Lethologica]

I mean, I'm outside the BDSM community, so maybe my opinion isn't worth much. But I can get access to depictions of more abusive relationships with trivial ease, and I don't see anything wrong with that. If that's your fantasy, then that's your fantasy, and fiction isn't limited by basic health requirements like live humans are. There's no reason to go limiting how abusive the relationship is, because the reader (or watcher, in this case) is the only mind that matters, and they generally have the ultimate safe word in simply closing the book/leaving the theatre/turning off the television.

Like, if you have a fantasy of being controlled an abused, having a safe word that is respected is antithetical to that fantasy: that's measure of control you maintain, when the whole point is to have control taken from you. You need that control in real life, in case things go to far, and anyone who disrespects that is certainly not worth your time. But in fiction?

I feel like when people complain about how unrealistic a depiction of BDSM Fifty shades shows us, you can make the same argument about anything. It'd be like martial arts masters complaining about kung fu movies showing impossible moves, except those moves are the point. People want to see those awesome moves, reality and feasibility be damned. People want a story about abuse and loss of control, and there's no reason to not make that loss of control absolute.

The implication that Grey is messed up because he was abused as a teen and that's why he does what he does is unacceptable, though. The greater trend of people not realizing that the books and movie depict non-consent fantasies creeps me out and ruins any chance I had of enjoying the movie. The whole time I'm thinking, "Holy crap some guy might think this is acceptable in a normal relationship," or "Holy crap some girl might get treated like this and not recognize the abuse," but that problem is way bigger than Fifty Shades of Grey.
It's not really fair to say that making kung fu more awesome than is realistic is equivalent to making BDSM more rape-y than is realistic just because both are exaggerating reality.

I mean, it's not like most BDSM-related erotic fic doesn't go beyond what would be acceptable in real life (most of it is unpublishable junk), so that's no surprise. But most of that fic also isn't pretending to be bound by BDSM codes or conventions.

That said, I'm not passing judgment since I haven't seen the movie or read the books.

[SiuiS]

Fifty Shades doesn't so much cater to those fantasies as it hides behind those fantasies to justify rape and abuse.

I was speaking towards the blanket statement of romance novels.


It's ascended fan-fiction. Which is to say that it presumably started out entirely as a piece of entirely amateur writing catering specifically and exclusively to one persons own fantasies; The Author. At least, so I would presume.
Whatever else, that is presumably the case. One can assume that anything fetishised would be fetishised because it is her fetish, rather than being about justifying, promoting or understanding anything in particular and I'd be surprised if there was any claim that she is any kind of authority on anything involved in the book.

I'm not sure any of that should or could change any value judgements you might make about the book and/or film, but it feels like a couple of important distinctions to bear in mind regardless.

Macro and micro. You're completely right, but so are the objectors; in a different light it normalizes and marks as okay things we do not want normalized and marked as okay.


I'm not quite sure what your argument is here.

Are you suggesting that the Author fetisizes BDSM, or that she fetishizes rape and abuse?

In the first case, I expect if that were the case she'd understand that the Dom stops when the Sub gives the safe word.

In the second case... uughh.

You've a lot to consider. Fantasies are just that. They're often pay limits for a reason; that's their appeal. I know many people with fantasies that would actively upset them if they occured in phenomenal space. The second case is not necessarily weird at all. It allows us to infer things about the person, but that's not a good barometer of them.


So what you're saying, is that 50 Shades is Transformers. Critically terrible, but, then you realise that the majority of people don't have tertiary level education.

Hmm. You mean movie, or book?


Unfortunately, psychology is weird, and you kind of can. However, as with everything dealing with psychology, it wont necessarily apply to everyone in the same demographic, but it applies enough to be a thing that kind of exists.

Citation needed. You've used enough weasel words here that your defense could as well have been "that's like, my opinion, man".

There are much better ways to disagree than telling someone else they're wrong but you can't prove it or even vaguely reference the ideas behind it.

[Cheesegear]

But most of that fic also isn't pretending to be bound by BDSM codes or conventions.

This.
50 Shades only bears a passing resemblance to BDSM (so social media has told me). What it's actually about is an emotionally crippled man who gets off by bonding women. Both physically and emotionally, even though Grey doesn't really have any emotional attachment to Ana at all. Ana says the equivalent of "How 'bout we try not having sex?" and Grey gets mad, and pretty much stalks her anyway.

The thing that bothers me (and probably most people) is not only does Grey not suffer repercussions for his actions, but it seems like the film at least, sets women up so that they should aspire to have at least one abusive relationship in their lives, so long as the sex is pretty good. Once the sex stops being good, then its time to leave. Which is wrong on several levels.

However, one thing is clear; No matter how good your intentions are, you can't change a man.

[Tiki Snakes]

I'm not quite sure what your argument is here.

Are you suggesting that the Author fetisizes BDSM, or that she fetishizes rape and abuse?

In the first case, I expect if that were the case she'd understand that the Dom stops when the Sub gives the safe word.

In the second case... uughh.

Its really not a wide, big point. I have no idea what is actually in the book in any meaningful way. My point is simply that whatever is in the book, it is important to remember that this isn't what you'd call a professionally written book. It isn't targetted at a demographic, or trying to send a message of some particular kind, or pretending to be particularly informed about anything in particular. It is a book written by one bored housewife for herself and to her own tastes, that has somehow been wildly successful.

When people start talking about how it misrepresents things or that it is an attempt to normalise some thing or other, I think at that point its important to remember that it really is just one persons porny fan-fic. That might not change the conclusions reached, but its worth considering along the way.

[Rodin]

What I've never understood is how 50 Shades made it big in the first place. There's a lot of Romance novels out there. There's just as much outright porn fiction, particularly since the advent of self-publishing E-books.

Out of the vast sea of stuff out there, why did such a terrible, bland book get picked to be the emissary?

[dehro]

A fortunate encounter of circumstances.
It is twilight fan-fiction at a time when twilight is making it really big
It touches on bdsm and introduces scores of young adult women to the topic, the same audience that had their first masturbatory urges reading twilight and is now exploring sex
It's also primarily a romance novel. The success enjoyed by the likes of Danielle Steel shows thatched genre has a wide and occasionally a-critic following.
It's cheap entertainment with a thrill
It can easily latch on to the craze level of passion the twilighters or whatever their name is reserved for their sparkly idols.
In other words, it was a cash cow waiting to happen and word-of-mouth mouth or the simple desire of many (primarily women) to look at what else is out there without getting on an erotica website was always going to push it.
It was promoted and pushed enough for these things to create the biggest possible hype. Good timing and tying it into the growth of the readers made its success.

Disclaimer: i have not read the sparkly vampire saga and have watched primarily youtube reviews of the related movies, instead of the actual movies.
I dislike their most vocal fringes of fandom with the same degree of dislike I reserve for beliebers.
I have not read the 50 grades books nor watched the movies.
I also never will.
I have dabbled in bdsm most of my adult life but never been part of its community, except maybe on a couple of websites/forums.
My judgement is most likely severely biased and flawed by second hand info.

I had a friend who by trade reads books and writes, sometimes even about those books. She was also something of a social activist, a feminist and a massive kinkster.
The easiest way to make her foam at the mouth was to mention 50 shades of grey and its sequels.
She had not a single good thing to say about the books, either from the literary point of view or for its characters, prose, plot or terrible handling of every aspect of bdsm and anything related to it.
On the couple of forums on kinky matters I participate, anyone who has read the books has posted comments that vary from "it's atrocious reading" to "it normalises abuse and depicts bdsmers as social misfits or criminally insane characters".. With reactions varying from bemused indifference to annoyance for the time wasted, to outrage.

On a more personal and direct note, since the books came out, an ever increasing number of wannabe Mr greys and aspiring Anas have invaded the online communities, displaying an alarming degree of naivetee, ignorance and some rehashed third rate notion of what bdsm is, can be or, more importantly, should never be.
I am all for more people being open towards bdsm or at least for some of the taboos to fall, enabling an informative conversation on the subject, but that is not what seems to be happening.
Plenty of people who already were navigating these websites but who had no chance in hell to approach (and potentially hurt through inexperience, lack of consideration or plain abuse) your average potentially submissive woman are now finding scores of blind and "innocent " people to prey upon.
People drawn to the prurient themes of bdsm, who look at it without seeing the potential dangers, both physical and emotional.
From what I have learned of the books, they seem to be directly responsible for this fad and this means they bear at least partial responsability every time your aspiring Ana decides to meet her dreamy Mr grey IRL and finds herself in a situation of abuse, be it physically or emotionally.

[Killer Angel]

It's "50 shades of badness".

[SirKazum]

Like, if you have a fantasy of being controlled an abused, having a safe word that is respected is antithetical to that fantasy: that's measure of control you maintain, when the whole point is to have control taken from you. You need that control in real life, in case things go to far, and anyone who disrespects that is certainly not worth your time. But in fiction?

You know, that's something I've been thinking about, lurking this here thread. I've done little more than dipping my toe in the world of BDSM, but as I understand the psychology of it, the fantasy of having one's control and even consent denied is a big part of it. I mean, even the language used makes it clear - when one person dominates another, who is submissive, that means the dom has complete control and the sub is just a slave. The trappings and language are there to support that impression. I'm not saying BDSM doesn't have, or shouldn't have, full consent and control of all parties at all times - on the contrary. It's a way to take those fantasies (which, as fantasies, don't have to be practical or consistent) and bring them into the real world in a way that's safe and fulfilling for everyone involved, and that does necessitate having full consent every step of the way. I do have a few "subby" fantasies, and if they played out in real life to their full extent, I'm sure I would NOT have any fun at all, and that's the difference. If you're a sub, you want to be dominated... into doing whatever is fun for you. Hence full consent and control by both parties. But you still want to fantasize that you're being forced, and all the trappings are there to enforce that.

However, in fiction, everything can be idealized. You don't have to limit yourself by the fact that real-life rape and abuse is bad because... this isn't real life. The fact that it's fiction, by itself, makes it a safe environment to explore things that would be awful in reality. I guess it's about the same argument as to why a FPS computer game of paintball would be pointless - paintball exists so you can have the experience of shooting people up without actually harming anyone... but, in a computer game, the fact that it's just a game by itself means you can't harm anyone. You can have "real" weapons, "real" blood and "real" death in it and nobody will be harmed anyway, although the realism of the experience will be enhanced. Similarly, in a fetish story, you can have real, complete domination (which necessitates a negation of consent/control by the submissive party) and it will still be safe for the reader.

I'm saying this because there are lots of rape and domination fetish books out there (Gor is the only example I know, but I'm sure there are others), and they don't seem to draw the same sort of criticism. Because it's obviously fiction, and it's there to titillate people who like to fantasize about the situations presented therein. So what I wonder is: Is the problem with 50 Shades the fact that it frames itself as a BDSM kink relationship, rather than pure and simple slavery/rape/whatever? Therefore implying that Christian Grey's behavior is acceptable and part of a (specific type of) healthy relationship? That this is how BDSM couples regularly function in the real world? All of which is BS, of course, and dangerously so, for all the reasons already pointed out. But my point is, if it was framed as fully criminal behavior rather than a legitimate kink, which you still might enjoy reading about if it's your thing, would it be more acceptable?

And yes, I'm fully aware of the bigger problem of abusive relationships, of how unfortunately common they are, and of how things like this book (and movie) glorify and justify them, therefore encouraging the problem. What I'm asking is if the beef the BDSM community has with the book is because it purports to portray a BDSM kink relationship and does so in a way that's more reminiscent of fantasy, rather than just cutting the middleman and portraying straight-up dom/sub fantasy.

[Bulldog Psion]

This should give you an idea. (http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/340987215) In fact, that's required reading for anyone who is even thinking of reading those books or watching the movie.

You know, reviews like this make me realize that there is a reason for appalling tosh like 50 Shades of Bundy or whatever it is.

It's so that reviews like this can be written! :smallbiggrin:

Honestly, a review of a real piece of trash by an intelligent person with a sense of humor is a real pleasure to read. This review and the follow-up are a delight to read, just like that review of "The Desolation of Smaug" that really ripped it to shreds, but did so with wit and style.

The use of those meme pictures and animated gifs, of course, are necessary for the full effect. But dang, those things cheered me up a lot. So funny.

(P.S. Someone gave me a copy of "50 Shades" when it first came out because "you're one of those writer guys and maybe you can pick up some tips on what sells." I forced my way through about half a chapter at the start, and maybe a quarter-chapter halfway through the thing. Then I hurled it, shrieking and gibbering in the awful tongue spoken on the Plateau of Leng, into the trash, and thought about performing an exorcism afterward. The thing is a moral abomination, and I say this as someone who is definitely not a prude in any sense, and who tends not to be judgmental of other people's amorous habits. And it's a crime against the English language; I've seen better writing from certain semi-literates at the university I attended. And to think it made someone rich. We need a facepalm smiley.)

[BeerMug Paladin]

You know, being reasonably confident that I'm not within the target audience for this kind of movie, I wouldn't ever suspect it's a fun sort of bad. That stuff- for me at least- tends to only work for movies when I am within the target audience. It just happens to be when a concept I like winds up being phenomenally botched (in a very particular way).

Battlefield Earth, for instance, is kind of fascinating in its awfulness. But at its core, it's really just a science fiction dystopian action movie. And I wouldn't mind seeing one of those now and then. But there's so many acting/scene/direction/cinematography choices in there that's odd that the whole experience is kind of surreal.

But deciding to go watch a fetish movie? That strikes me as a kind of weird thing to even consider, even if it is just to get a laugh at the weird/unhealthy things people will sometimes fantasize about.

As for another conversation going on within this thread, I remember seeing the Super Mario Bros. movie when I was a kid and loving it. I'm still honestly baffled by all the people who claim to have hated that movie even when they first saw it. It had 10 seconds of dinosaur footage! How could any kid not love it for that alone?

One of my adult hobbies has been in occasionally revisiting things I remember as being good when I was a kid. It's kind of surprising considering what I think holds up and what doesn't, considering which things I remember actually liking the most at the time.

Looking back, I think when I was a kid I cared way, way more about interesting concepts than I did about effective execution of those concepts or their use in a good story. I didn't see what was actually being shown. I just noticed something that was conceptually similar to what I was actually seeing. Oops!

I totally recognize that now, and I don't think there's anything wrong with judging/enjoying a movie/show in this superficial way. But I'm just not like this anymore. I also liked Wesley Crusher, Neelix and Voyager in general. I can admit that.

Sure, I can still be swept away in the excitement over a movie/show/novel's basic premise, but it's not the cure-all panacea it used to be for my critical eye. Looking back I can recognize certain things as being badly executed. But I didn't notice it because I noticed the concept, not the actual thing I was experiencing.

Honestly, although there is a definite kid/adult divide in what I considered good, I think there is a sharper (and more important) distinction between mid-college/post-mid-college divide in what I enjoy. For the most part as an adult, I started to care about how the concepts were executed within the story. But only in a very narrow sense of how they were presented/portrayed. Whether the details were self-consistent/scientific. And I still didn't care about technically competently told stories. At all.

For one thing, when I became a young adult I dropped nearly every category of fantasy fiction besides 'hard sci-fi' because I thought it was the only worthwhile brand of fantasy. Hard sci-fi was about being realistic, but still exploring interesting concepts or ideas. And (mostly) keeping accurate to my understanding of how the world really works. Hard sci-fi presented 'real' stories, but not boring like those ones set in the real world.

Everything else was worthless to me because it felt arbitrary, uncreative and above all, unintelligent. I've always happened to be pretty interested in science/mathematics, so it sort of naturally fit into what I enjoyed thinking about anyway. Soft sci-fi kind of bothered me because it seemed to just be magic under a different name. It seemed like it was a child attempting to mimic a master painter via fingerpaints.

Largely, I was still noticing concepts more than story/characters. I just became more discerning about what concepts I would be okay with accepting. Because for some reason, that was what made a story good/interesting to me moreso than plot or characters. A science fiction story where the protagonist does nothing but watch a thing happen in front of him/her could have earned high marks from me if the concept of what the person was looking at was interesting enough.

But now? I might still like the concept, but now I can recognize that there's no actual story going on when there's no story going on. And I can more easily recognize a complex character if there is one. I don't think that's something that I was capable of until after a couple years of college (whether the change is due to age or education level, I'll forever have no way of knowing).

I let Star Trek slide (for the most part) because I accepted all the magical things in it as a kid and had been doing so for many years. But when I saw it as a kid, I disliked the 'talky' episodes that I now consider the best episodes. "The Drumhead", "Tapestry", "The First Duty", etc... Because they were boring. I think my attitude about those episodes in particular shifted around the same time as the young-adult/mid-college shift in my perspective. But I can't really be certain about that.

I just wanted to relay that it took me quite a while to even begin to notice what really makes a story/characters good. I never studied English literature, and always despised reading those books assigned in public school.

If I was exposed to something in college that caused my shift in perspective, I honestly don't know what it could have been. Although I did take some classes in creative writing, art and philosophy, I mostly studied abstract mathematics.

Make of this whatever you will.

[crayzz]

Anyone who tries to dismiss someone's opinion because they're an outsider looking in is doing so because they're incapable of defending their own position and deserves the mockery they get.

I don't think that's entirely fair. It's possible I'm missing some important dynamic because I have little experience in a given field.

I'm willing to consider that my opinion isn't worth much because it may be uninformed.


It's not really fair to say that making kung fu more awesome than is realistic is equivalent to making BDSM more rape-y than is realistic just because both are exaggerating reality.

Not because they're exaggerating reality, but because they're exaggerating the specific element that people want, be it awesome kung fu moves, cool sword fights, crazy conspiracies, or the non-consent dynamic of BDSM.

[Ceiling_Squid]

If you want a fun 50 Shades of Grey experience, watch George Takei read it. Takes 2 minutes, is hilarious.

If you want less class and more crass, watch Gilbert Gottfried read it.

Or better yet, watch both. Both are gloriously funny interpretations.


What does education have to do with taste?

A great deal. I am of the belief that people need exposure to a variety of ideas to keep their brains exercised and their tastes discerning. It's not about inherent intelligence or some appeal to intellectual egotism, it's lack of habitual consumption of varied culture. People need context.

The average person doesn't read a novel or seek high-quality writing for years at a time. It's no guarantee of developing better taste, but leaving one's comfort zone and reading more often (particularly as part of a school curriculum) can expose someone to more challenging and fulfilling material.

Most of the people who buy into stuff like 50 Shades do so because they only read occasionally, for titillation or excitement, and only because it was heavily publicized. If they had a better frame of reference and could compare it to far better material, I like to think they might feel differently. People are smarter than we give them credit for.

But alas, the damage is done. Stuff like 50 Shades is probably the best thing they've read in recent memory. They have very little to hold it up against.

So no, it's not explicitly about being college educated, it's about people being taught to think critically and reading a deeper and wider array of material. This is more likely to happen in an educational setting.


Meh, so is any evidence anyone in this thread is going to offer to the theory that taste is related to higher level education. Quite frankly I find the idea so absurd and (mildly) offensive that I laughed out loud, literally, when I read the first person who suggested having a college education(or lack thereof) affects your taste in movies.

Frankly, the offense taken baffles me, beyond perhaps a misguided appeal to classism. See above.

This is correlative, not causative.

Can someone without a higher education be well-read and have good taste? Absolutely. But they have to work toward it on their own. Conversely, some educated people waste their resources and gain very little.

Higher education simply provides better tools and guidance. That's the relationship you're ignoring.

[Solaris]

I don't think that's entirely fair. It's possible I'm missing some important dynamic because I have little experience in a given field.

I'm willing to consider that my opinion isn't worth much because it may be uninformed.

If your opinion is wrong, then it can be disassembled it on its own merits (or lack thereof).
Kneejerk dismissal of someone's opinion because they don't have intimate experience is generally used only to cover for bad decisions that can't be justified. For example, if you were to witness someone beating their kids with a two-by-four, you wouldn't need to be a parent in order to opine that maybe, just maybe, they shouldn't be doing that.

Likewise with BDSM stuff. If someone couldn't explain or justify doing something to someone outside the subculture, then they probably shouldn't be doing it. There's few things in life that don't benefit from having an outsider casting a little light on the goings-on. In a relatively insular subculture wherein it's easy to start thinking things are okay because everyone else says they are, it's beneficial to have outsiders walking in and going "WTF is this?"

[Bulldog Psion]

Not because they're exaggerating reality, but because they're exaggerating the specific element that people want, be it awesome kung fu moves, cool sword fights, crazy conspiracies, or the non-consent dynamic of BDSM.

Just that it seems to be easier to find the last of those things a heck of a lot creepier than the others. Quite possibly because it can be translated into real horror much more readily. No matter how wild a movie kung fu scene may be, nobody's going to be able to kick down a 20 foot thick concrete wall, or whatever. It's obvious fantasy.

BDSM as abuse and violation that the victim happens to accidentally get pleasure from, on the other hand, is all too possible, with the exception of the "accidentally get pleasure from" part.

Heck, when I read that review linked above, and I saw that the main male character was inflicting all this stuff on the female character because she reminded him of his mother, whom he referred to in no pleasant terms, the first thing I thought was, "If this was real, she wouldn't get out alive, because that sounds like a depiction of serial killer thinking." If he's transforming her in his mind into a symbol of his mother he hates, and then inflicting pain and violence on her as some kind of revenge ... yeah. No way that could turn into some dark, horrible, and deadly. No sirree, nooooo way at all ... :smallannoyed:

And I admit, it does seem weird to me to just make a straight up fetish movie. Again, I'm not a prude, got nothing against people consuming porn that doesn't cross certain wide boundaries, etc. But it seems like a dang motel pay-per-view somehow jumped over into theaters, from the description and what little I read of the book. And that, to me, is pretty bizarre.

[Tiki Snakes]

It shouldn't really be that surprising that it got a mainstream release movie, if you think about it. Neither is the reason that hard to fathom.

The book, whatever its crimes or failings, was simply that successful. World domination, so to speak. A proper cultural phenomenon. It would take something pretty major for a film of this to not make acceptable returns and the upper limit on potential returns is pretty significant.

There was a risk of course that anyone involved could have their careers absolutely destroyed simply by association, mind you. But even in that scenario the studios would have likely made out like bandits. The thing comes with a huge existing audience that are likely to pay zero attention to reviews no matter how harsh they. To a degree, it's bulletproof.

[Flickerdart]

A great deal. I am of the belief that people need exposure to a variety of ideas to keep their brains exercised and their tastes discerning. It's not about inherent intelligence or some appeal to intellectual egotism, it's lack of habitual consumption of varied culture. People need context.

The average person doesn't read a novel or seek high-quality writing for years at a time. It's no guarantee of developing better taste, but leaving one's comfort zone and reading more often (particularly as part of a school curriculum) can expose someone to more challenging and fulfilling material.
This has nothing at all to do with education - you could get all the way up to a PhD without ever reading a single fiction book as part of your coursework.

[Ceiling_Squid]

This has nothing at all to do with education - you could get all the way up to a PhD without ever reading a single fiction book as part of your coursework.

Ignore the rest of my post if you want, I simply state that there's a valid correlation between the educational environment and the likelihood of exposure to challenging material. The tools are much more accessible.

It's obviously not true in all cases, or for every field of study.

[Flickerdart]

Ignore the rest of my post if you want, I simply state that there's a valid correlation between the educational environment and the likelihood of exposure to challenging material. The tools are much more accessible.

It's obviously not true in all cases, or for every field of study.
The rest of your post wasn't the point of contention. People who read a broader range are better equipped to recognize when something sucks. I simply disagree that the education apparatus is related to this in any way except incidentally - the first thing you should be learning in school isn't that 50 Shades is bad, but that not all correlation is meaningful.

Besides, people can read a lot and still enjoy the occasional trashy romp.

[JoshL]

And I admit, it does seem weird to me to just make a straight up fetish movie. Again, I'm not a prude, got nothing against people consuming porn that doesn't cross certain wide boundaries, etc. But it seems like a dang motel pay-per-view somehow jumped over into theaters, from the description and what little I read of the book. And that, to me, is pretty bizarre.

Like anything else, it depends on how it's handled. Take the movie Secretary (the one good thing about 50 shades is it's getting more people talking about Secretary). I don't recall it being particularly graphic, so it doesn't come across as porn-ish, but is about a dom/sub relationship and how it develops. It's almost a rom-com by the end. And for a more extreme/unrealistic (in the Safe, Sane and Consentual department), I'd want to suggest Boxing Helena, but it was very, very bad and the ending left much to be desired.

On the other hand, I did music for a horror film about (I'm not making this up) the spirit of the Tickle Monster who would possess people and make them tickle people to death. Typical bad movie fare, except the murder scenes dragged on WAY too long. I'm quite certain the director was just making a fetish film with a pasted on "plot"

[Ceiling_Squid]

The rest of your post wasn't the point of contention. People who read a broader range are better equipped to recognize when something sucks. I simply disagree that the education apparatus is related to this in any way except incidentally - the first thing you should be learning in school isn't that 50 Shades is bad, but that not all correlation is meaningful.

Besides, people can read a lot and still enjoy the occasional trashy romp.

Fair enough.

I think we're quibbling at this point, though, in regards to what we'd consider a "meaningful" amount of correlation.

I see your point and and acknowledge it. I raised the issue more in response to Starwulf taking offense at the very notion of the association.

I think it's reasonable for someone to raise that correlation, and hardly a laughable or offensive thing to say. That's what spurred me to make the argument.

[bluewind95]

I think that discerning taste is more related to openness to the exposure to new ideas, rather than just exposure itself. If you're completely shut down to the ideas being presented, it won't matter how many of them you've been exposed to, anyways. That said, even if you're open, if you have no exposure, well, you won't get the benefits.

It is true that education is a way to gain that exposure, but it only benefits those that are open to it anyways. So there's a correlation to education and discerning taste, but it is not causation. That said, if uneducated (in an official, typical way) people are open enough and make use of other resources, then they'd also get discerning taste. It's not a matter of having a college degree. It's a matter of an open mind that has absorbed knowledge.

Education will affect our taste, in the same way ANY other event in our lives will do so. Our experiences shape us and our perception, and our perception affects our taste. Yeah, the ways in which certain events (which are relatively standard) will affect people's taste will definitely show a trend. most kids are exposed to roughly the same literature, etc, and told it's good. After all, education is relatively standardized. It is to be expected that this will have an effect in the way people perceive things, and yes, trends will happen. That said, this is such a complicated matter, and people are exposed to so much more than just the standards, that to make a blanket statement about it would be nothing short of nearsighted. If I recall correctly, more than one of those predictors needs to be used, and there's a good reason for that.

Regarding Shades of Grey, I haven't really watched it nor have I read the books. I find the descriptions i have seen horrifying, and t the same time, they give me a sort of mild curiosity. maybe I'll wait for this to be out for rent. I would like to see what about this sells, and analyze the twisted psychology used. That said, I do still find the idea pretty horrifying, even with my curiosity about it. I agree with those that have been saying that fiction is a safe way to explore unsafe things, but in the end, I also think that authors need to be responsible. It's fine to portray an abusive relationship in fiction and whatnot, but I draw the line when the author portrays it as a GOOD thing. Without establishing a really unreliable narrator, and having the skill to pull it off as something bad even when the narrator is convinced it's good, I think it'd be best for humanity if those stories were kept in the private chambers of the author's brain fantasies.

[Ceiling_Squid]

Well said, bluewind.

It's more about having the tools and resources available to educated people. They are, of course, free to ignore them or be unreceptive.

[Talakeal]

This has nothing at all to do with education - you could get all the way up to a PhD without ever reading a single fiction book as part of your coursework.

How are you fulfilling your general ed english requirement?

[Jeivar]

Sorry, but this thread is about the enjoyability of the 50 Shades of Grey movie. Why are people going back and forth about education?

[Dragonus45]

Sorry, but this thread is about the enjoyability of the 50 Shades of Grey movie. Why are people going back and forth about education?

Because the book/movie are so bland outside of their offensiveness that this it just about the best conversation to be had.

[BannedInSchool]

Sorry, but this thread is about the enjoyability of the 50 Shades of Grey movie. Why are people going back and forth about education?
Because we can't respect boundaries.

[Renegade Paladin]

Because we can't respect boundaries.

*rimshot* (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-4-gLlF0uw)

:smallamused:

[bluewind95]

Sorry, but this thread is about the enjoyability of the 50 Shades of Grey movie. Why are people going back and forth about education?

Because a point was made that the enjoyability of the movie could be related to education.

[Ceiling_Squid]

Sorry, but this thread is about the enjoyability of the 50 Shades of Grey movie. Why are people going back and forth about education?

A desperate attempt to rationalize the popularity of horrible things?

If we don't try to understand what we hate and fear, why, we might just start randomly raging against humanity...and well, next thing you know, we'll have hit the reboot button on society with a few hundred nukes. Escalation being what it is.

See what you've done, E.L. James?! You're tearing us apart!

[Starwulf]

snip

I was taking offense at the not-so-subtle implication that people without higher education are some kind of(in CHeesegears exact words) "sheeple" and the more subtle implication that they are to stupid to know what's good and what's not. Just because you may have gone to college, does NOT make you any better then someone who has not in terms of what kind of media entertainment you like. He was basically saying people(at least this is what I derived from it, especially with that idiotic sheeple comment) without college education are morons and that those with college education are somehow inherently better, and yes, I take major offense to that.

[Rater202]

At the same time, someone who has taken college level writing classes might be better equipped to see flaws in the literature they consume.

though not always, I had an English Teacher back in highschool who majored in english lit who could not see the flaws in Twilight.

[Flickerdart]

How are you fulfilling your general ed english requirement?
I was never required to complete such an elective.

[Solaris]

Sorry, but this thread is about the enjoyability of the 50 Shades of Grey movie. Why are people going back and forth about education?

Because this is GitP, and everyone staying on topic for more than a page is pretty much impossible.

[Dragonus45]

Because this is GitP, and everyone staying on topic for more than a page is pretty much impossible.

That's not true at all, as long as the inevitable argument that follows the creation of the thread is on the thread subject we can stay on topic for quite a while.

[Ceiling_Squid]

I was taking offense at the not-so-subtle implication that people without higher education are some kind of(in CHeesegears exact words) "sheeple" and the more subtle implication that they are to stupid to know what's good and what's not. Just because you may have gone to college, does NOT make you any better then someone who has not in terms of what kind of media entertainment you like. He was basically saying people(at least this is what I derived from it, especially with that idiotic sheeple comment) without college education are morons and that those with college education are somehow inherently better, and yes, I take major offense to that.

I tend not to read such malice into things, but now that I read closer into the comment in question...

[Cheesegear]

I tend not to read such malice into things, but now that I read closer into the comment in question...

People read what they want to read. People are still reading my comments as absolutes, when I never meant any such thing and have expressed such several times.

Statistics/Demographics are not absolutes. They are predicative.

[The Glyphstone]

And even on-topic, there isn't a whole lot we can discuss about the subject matter and remain within board rules, so off-topic is going to be easier than usual.

[Starwulf]

People read what they want to read. People are still reading my comments as absolutes, when I never meant any such thing and have expressed such several times.

When you explicitly use the word sheeple in direct conjunction with the idea that having college education directly affects your ability to discern between "good" and "bad" forms of entertainment I'm really not sure what other conclusions you think people are going to draw. It was that combo together that set me off, that and the fact that anyone who has tried to defend that viewpoint has provided absolutely zero proof in the form of studies proving such a correlation. It doesn't help that you all keep mentioning critical thinking and stuff that you learn in college, when that is a skill that every student learns in 3rd grade English(and I know this for a fact, it's when the teachers started my oldest daughter on it, and they have consistently put more and more of an emphasis on it as she's progressed through the grades, they absolutely require her to dig deep into whatever reading material they go over, making her look at the subject from all angles). Hell, even when I was in school, critical thinking and being forced to examine the subject matter from all sides was pushed at least as early as 6th grade. It isn't no college skill, that's for dang sure.



Statistics/Demographics are not absolutes. They are predicative.

Not only have you not provided psychological studies proving the correlation of higher education and more discerning tastes in media entertainment, you have also not provided a lick of Statistical/demographical proof to back up the claim either. All you've given is your own experience in a single college level class, which is damn well not representative of ANYTHING, let alone something concrete enough to show you might have a solid foundation for your opinion.

[cobaltstarfire]

People read what they want to read. People are still reading my comments as absolutes, when I never meant any such thing and have expressed such several times.

Statistics/Demographics are not absolutes. They are predicative.

You know what you're saying kind of falls apart, knowing that there have been studies on particular medical and weather related issues that show the opposite of what you're saying in this thread.

In the case of medical related issues higher education was correlated with making poor decisions in the particular medical issue. While on the weather issue higher education simply made it easier for people to rationalize whatever their belief was in spite of the actual evidence.

You can't basically suggest that anyone who likes particular things must simply be uneducated/mindless sheep when there's much more to taste and even critical thinking ability than ones education. And if you want citations, I can probably get them.

[Cheesegear]

When you explicitly use the word sheeple in direct conjunction with the idea that having college education directly affects your ability to discern between "good" and "bad" forms of entertainment

That was a mistake. I see that I left out a sentence. That's not what I meant. 'Sheeple' are what I thought was a common term meaning people that take information that they are given at face value without questioning it. They exist, which is why marketing and political campaigns actually work, and it's why 'critically unsuccessful' movies can rake in massive profits. Because there are people who don't even see certain issues because their frame of reference is limited to what they personally see and hear - which can be not a lot - or, they just don't care.

I did not mean that 'Sheeple' be defined as people without access to a tertiary education. But, I connected my sentences like that so that's how people read it, and that's my fault. Sorry.

People with different life experiences get different readings from mediums. That's part of Reception Theory. People with different frames of references, and education - not just tertiary, but any form of education - have a different frame of reference than people who don't have that same point of reference.

My 'education' is watching nine Seasons of The Sopranos and five of Oz and The Wire. My frame of reference tells me that Breaking Bad is mediocre at best. There are people who love Breaking Bad. I don't say I'm 'better' than them (I never said those words other posters implied that's what I meant which I never did). I ask those people if they've seen Sopranos, or Oz, or The Wire, then I tell them to watch those shows, because they are, frankly, better. But I have that 'education' which gives me a different frame of reference.

Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure that's what my lecturer meant by education, and I'm clearly misremembering something I learned six (maybe seven?) years ago.
'Education' was probably defined as anything that gave its audience a different frame of reference to an audience without that same education. Where education is anything that gives the viewer more/greater information on the topic being presented, which then lets you determine your Target Audience.

...Yeah. That's it.
Sorry everyone for misremembering something I learned six/seven years ago and then conveying that information really badly.

EDIT: To tie the post back to topic...
People love 50 Shades, but people who are actually part of the BDSM community hate it. The BDSM community are 'educated' on the subject.

[Rodin]

My 'education' is watching nine Seasons of The Sopranos and five of Oz and The Wire. My frame of reference tells me that Breaking Bad is mediocre at best. There are people who love Breaking Bad. I don't say I'm 'better' than them (I never said those words other posters implied that's what I meant which I never did). I ask those people if they've seen Sopranos, or Oz, or The Wire, then I tell them to watch those shows, because they are, frankly, better. But I have that 'education' which gives me a different frame of reference.



I'm sorry, but this still comes off as "I like these shows better than another show I don't like, ergo people who disagree are wrong". You're listing 4 shows in different styles/genres (although the Wire and Breaking Bad are fairly close I guess) and saying that one of them is objectively superior, and implying that anyone who doesn't agree must not understand what they're seeing. It's the idea that you can look at someone and say what they should like. What if Breaking Bad appeals to my tastes more than the Sopranos? What if I just don't like Prison fiction? What about someone who has seen both The Wire and Breaking Bad and decided the latter is superior?

Also, no matter how it's defined I still find "Sheeple" to be a pretty offensive term. It's rendering a large portion of the populace into a stupid beast. It's a term that I would happily see die out.

[Cheesegear]

I'm sorry, but this still comes off as "I like these shows better than another show I don't like, ergo people who disagree are wrong".

You're reading what you want to read. Because that's not what I meant, and isn't what I even said, either.

Anyway, I'm done.
- 50 Shades is bad.
- I've retracted and apologised previous statements about tertiary education and replaced it with a new point, which I do mean;
- 'Education' on a subject - or lack thereof - influences your frame of reference for a medium which therefore can (not 'will') influence your enjoyment of said medium.

That's the end of my participation in this topic. I wont be replying further.

[BeerMug Paladin]

I posted my own story about my developing tastes a bit earlier to point out how I easily fit into that mindless demographic so many people lament existing. And hammer upon every time something comes out that's widely agreed to be awful, but is still a huge financial success.

You all know the demographic, the folks who pay to see Twilight, Transformers, anything Roland Emmerich or Michael Bay really. The sort of audience that internet rage types absolutely loathe because they keep such figures in their jobs responsible for the dark and gritty comic books (like Joe Quesada, Frank Miller or Rob Liefeld) or brainless, rote action movies and modern remakes/sequels void of the original's cleverness. The things that are bewilderingly successful but critics and rabid fans hammer as being trashy nonsense ruining everything forever.

Actually being in that group of people who can't recognize good media for as long as I was didn't make me dumb. In fact, I have considerable circumstantial evidence that I've always been really smart. I was always a rather voracious reader, I did the same critical thinking questions in English classes that others did (I hated how trite the questions often were). Yet I never really developed in my tastes until way, way after such classes were apparently supposed to make me do so(?).

Maybe if I majored in a humanity, instead of an inhumanity, I would have caught on sooner. I would guess not, though.

I'm glad to have first encountered things like Watchmen after that mental transition. Because I simply wouldn't have been able to enjoy it before. But it was a definite change I did not have until rather late in life for whatever reason, and although I can't know for certain, I do personally attribute that change to mostly education.

Also, while non-college people can be just as educated as college folks, college is a place with an explicit goal of being educated. Education is way different from smarts, and as my story provides an example, passing the critical analysis bits of an english class doesn't necessarily make one appreciate critical analysis or even value using the skill.

It's kind of like how earning a doctorate doesn't guarantee one is not a fool, it merely reduces the likelihood of being a dolt in a very specific field of study. There are lots of doctorate holders who are fools outside their field of expertise and even a nonzero percentage who are fools within their particular domain.

But statistical trends do exist; they matter to marketing whether others believe in them or not. They're used because the data they provide can be exploited.

[dehro]

can we drop the slew of generalisations please? I didn't finish college but like to think I have a fairly well rounded preparation on a wide range of subjects. I have friends who are academics and who can get technical ando hold debates that go well over my head. I also have friends who never went to college at all but can keep up in those debates better than I can, friends who never went to college and are dumb as bricks, and friends who came out of college with a piece of paper with phd written on it, and another piece of paper with genital herpes written on it... And Not much else to show for their expensive degrees.
Some of these friends share my interests in kink, most don't. Some of them share my views on a wide range of topics, including my tastes in movies and my opinions on what makes a good or bad movie or book. No, the common threads between those who share certain characteristics or tastes or capacity for critical analysis of a text of fiction do not seem to depend on their level of education.
In fact the notion that a college education alone would be enough to make such distinctions is irksome, false and flawed, and more than a little elitist.
Upbringing, social status, exposition, country of horizon and geographical setting, religious factors, political ideology and a slew of other factors are just as important in determining the single individual's capacity for analysis, competence on the specific subject or the art form in which the subject is expressed... And even then, two similarly placed individuals may reach wildly different conclusions, so please stop already with the silly attempt at turning this into statistics of any significant value.

[Starbuck_II]

The alt text on that comic was "You think it's so legendarily bad that you'll torrent it and sit through it just for the Kitschy nerd cred. I too once thought as you did."

I saw it on Youtube.

It wasn't that bad.
Okay, the singing at the end was horrribad. But the rest was pretty decent. Boba Fett was nice side adventure story.

[BeerMug Paladin]

I'm not making a value judgement. The statement is roughly analagous to "The average man is taller than the average woman."

[Solaris]

Judging by the number of people who seem to know something about BDSM on this forum, I can't help but wonder if "Dungeon Master" might not have slightly different connotations in their personal lives than it does in most games of D&D...


That's not true at all, as long as the inevitable argument that follows the creation of the thread is on the thread subject we can stay on topic for quite a while.

I said everyone staying on topic is pretty much impossible, not that everyone gets off-topic by the first page.


I'm not making a value judgement. The statement is roughly analagous to "The average man is taller than the average woman."

Yeah, but there will always be someone upset over generalizations if they're in the group being generalized about. They're simply not going to understand that, to use your analogy, a 7' woman does not invalidate the accuracy of the statement that the average man is taller than the average woman - and she's gonna be really mad if you say it within earshot of her. Throw in the fact that we have a lot of average-to-highly intelligent people who play a lot of RPGs (a demographic known for its intelligence, not its ambition) and the people complaining about being lumped in with a generalization that the uneducated are less intelligent and have different tastes than the educated are going to just come climbing out of the woodwork to lob anecdotes they think invalidate the truth of a premise.

Concepts like "A person's academic accomplishments are not a measure of his worth" simply cannot be taken for granted in a discussion.

[The Glyphstone]

Judging by the number of people who seem to know something about BDSM on this forum, I can't help but wonder if "Dungeon Master" might not have slightly different connotations in their personal lives than it does in most games of D&D...

.

Possibly, but I'd suspect first the general effect of fringe groups hanging out together/overlapping and cross-pollination of knowledge. Though the jokes about 'roleplaying' are obvious as well.

[Flickerdart]

Everyone knows /tg/ is just SFW /d/.

[-D-]

Everyone knows /tg/ is just SFW /d/.
Especially readers of fifty shades of gravel.

[Barmoz]

Until this thread, I really didn't know that 50 shades was originally Twilight fan fic. I bought the books for my gf but did not read them myself. I do admit with some embarrassment that I have read the Twilight books however, I can't say I enjoyed them, I started the first one and couldn't leave a series unfinished.

However, this brings up an interesting question, could Laurel K. Hamilton be the time traveling offspring of Stephanie Meyer and E.L. James?

[-D-]

However, this brings up an interesting question, could Laurel K. Hamilton be the time traveling offspring of Stephanie Meyer and E.L. James?
You're thinking too much outside the box, it's more of an inside outside job. Stephanie Meyer is spawn of Hamilton. E.L. James is merely a mirage.

[SiuiS]

I liked Laurel K. Hamilton's work, in the Anita Blake line. At least until it was all about sex. Then it was boring. :-/


You're reading what you want to read. Because that's not what I meant, and isn't what I even said, either. I wont be replying further.

Doesn't need a response, but you do realize your defense is just as much a rationalization as their offense, right? That's how the mind works. They are indeed reading what they want in your words. And you are reading what you want in yours. You're a scientist enough to realize that impression is 9/10ths if communication. You shouldn't pound on with that impression just because you're right. You should repair the visceral rift first.

You gotta have that bridge (good relations) before the cars can cross (logic/knowledge).

[dehro]

Possibly, but I'd suspect first the general effect of fringe groups hanging out together/overlapping and cross-pollination of knowledge. Though the jokes about 'roleplaying' are obvious as well. https://scontent-mxp.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/67953_10151302678703442_1313441317_n.jpg?oh=539579 ae64a1bea132ed0fe2db12d120&oe=5590B0B1

[Wardog]

I haven't read the books or seen the movie, and don't intend to.

All I want to know is: why did they chose a 6-bit colour index, and what have the done with the remaining 14 shades?

[Cheesegear]

All I want to know is: why did they chose a 6-bit colour index, and what have the done with the remaining 14 shades?

Because it's a pun on the main character's name, and has nothing to do with actual colours. :smallwink:

[Bulldog Psion]

Because it's a pun on the main character's name, and has nothing to do with actual colours. :smallwink:

I assume that it's also some kind of semi-inexplicable riff on the Irish thing about "40 shades of green" that my mother drove me insane with while I was growing up. But what the exact link is, and why 50 rather than 40, escapes me.

Tragically, I find that like Roy talking to an NPC, I don't have enough interest in the answer to investigate. :smallbiggrin:

[SiuiS]

Aside from the pun, it seems to be exactly that. The character, Dorian Grey, refers to himself (I am told) as 'fifty shades of [messed up]'.

[Aotrs Commander]

The only thing to come out of this... ye gods, it's a series, is it...? *shudder* is this: Fifty Thousand Shades of Grey (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fifty-Thousand-Shades-Of-Grey-Parody/dp/1479215430).



The reviews are the best part.

Especially the one idiot who clearly a) didn't get the joke and b) didn't even read the book description properly.

[Eldan]

The only thing to come out of this... ye gods, it's a series, is it...? *shudder* is this: Fifty Thousand Shades of Grey (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fifty-Thousand-Shades-Of-Grey-Parody/dp/1479215430).



The reviews are the best part.

Especially the one idiot who clearly a) didn't get the joke and b) didn't even read the book description properly.

From the title, I was expecting a crossover with Warhammer 40k. This works too.

[Flickerdart]

From the title, I was expecting a crossover with Warhammer 40k. This works too.
Shades 50k - in the grim darkness of the future, there is only fanfic.

[Salasay]

What I've learned by reading this thread:

Terrible Plot
Terrible Acting
One dimensional characters
Attractive leads
Good sex scenes

Soooooo, your run-of-the-mill porn movie?

[-D-]

Shades 50k - in the grim darkness of the future, there is only fanfic.
In the gray grayness of the future, there is only Fifty Shades of Gray. That pretty much explains why everything in Warhammer 40k universe happened. Chaos obviously read Fifty thousand shades of gray and loved it, while the space marines refuse it to read. Necrons just can't read.



Soooooo, your run-of-the-mill porn movie?
Yes, only worse. Way worse. Imagine a porn for people that like to be put in a pan with vegetables, only instead of pan and vegetables, they are into reading boring stuff.

[Killer Angel]

The best thing of 50 SoG, are all the laughs you can have with the massive numbers of jokes about it.
Example (http://selfpublishingadvice.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/ebookfriendly-cartoon-17-526x3941-500x374.png). :smalltongue:

[Flickerdart]

Chaos obviously read Fifty thousand shades of gray and loved it, while the space marines refuse it to read.
I'm pretty sure Slaanesh would execute whoever wrote 50 Shades in-universe because of how uncreative and unsatisfying it is.

[Bulldog Psion]

The only thing to come out of this... ye gods, it's a series, is it...? *shudder* is this: Fifty Thousand Shades of Grey (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Fifty-Thousand-Shades-Of-Grey-Parody/dp/1479215430).



The reviews are the best part.

Especially the one idiot who clearly a) didn't get the joke and b) didn't even read the book description properly.

Ahhh ... this is indeed worth a chuckle. :smallbiggrin:

[Bhu]

A young woman I know summed it up pretty well: "Porn should not be this grindingly dull. Whoever wrote this needs to go back to the internet and try again after watching a few videos they can't unsee."

[Eldan]

I'm pretty sure Slaanesh would execute whoever wrote 50 Shades in-universe because of how uncreative and unsatisfying it is.

No I think he/she would promote it. It's about abusive relationships and pushing your partner into sexual practises they aren't into and it satisfies a lot of women who on some level know that it isn't all that good.

[Foeofthelance]

I'm not quite sure what your argument is here.

Are you suggesting that the Author fetisizes BDSM, or that she fetishizes rape and abuse?

In the first case, I expect if that were the case she'd understand that the Dom stops when the Sub gives the safe word.

In the second case... uughh.

I rather suspect it was the first one, and as someone who has to deal with far too much fanfiction of this sort, her errors don't even begin to surprise me. It is much, much easier to pick up on the lingo for most things than it is to actually understand that lingo or the connotations behind it. As a writer, her mistakes are more in line with a long time Call of Duty player writing a by-the-numbers action story filled with lots of gratuitous explosions and gunplay and even accurate enough to point out all the times the main character stops to reload and scavenge rounds off his victims the bad guys! ...while completely ignoring the problems caused by the fact that said main character is explicitly stated to be carrying a customized .50 Desert Eagle while the mooks are all armed with mass produced 9mm Glocks.

Unfortunately for EL James, her lack of actual experience with the subject matter quickly turns her characters into caricatures who embody some of the worst and most dangerous aspects of humanity, even as they act out the sort of bedroom scenario that the author/readers want to enjoy. That's where the major disconnect lies. Grey is a fantasy lover, and would therefore be trusted to push the author/reader to their boundaries without actually causing any harm. Those who try to mimic him in reality do not have those pre-built limits, however, and to make it worse they are echoing an echo. Whatever the true nature of the thing has long since been lost by that point, and that's where the rest of us starting going, "WTH?"

[dehro]

http://41.media.tumblr.com/5cd2f6ea4e743619dd6d948e2abe98b7/tumblr_njqyswCkxk1qe9g4mo1_r1_500.jpg

[Rater202]

I rather suspect it was the first one, and as someone who has to deal with far too much fanfiction of this sort, her errors don't even begin to surprise me. It is much, much easier to pick up on the lingo for most things than it is to actually understand that lingo or the connotations behind it. As a writer, her mistakes are more in line with a long time Call of Duty player writing a by-the-numbers action story filled with lots of gratuitous explosions and gunplay and even accurate enough to point out all the times the main character stops to reload and scavenge rounds off his victims the bad guys! ...while completely ignoring the problems caused by the fact that said main character is explicitly stated to be carrying a customized .50 Desert Eagle while the mooks are all armed with mass produced 9mm Glocks.

Unfortunately for EL James, her lack of actual experience with the subject matter quickly turns her characters into caricatures who embody some of the worst and most dangerous aspects of humanity, even as they act out the sort of bedroom scenario that the author/readers want to enjoy. That's where the major disconnect lies. Grey is a fantasy lover, and would therefore be trusted to push the author/reader to their boundaries without actually causing any harm. Those who try to mimic him in reality do not have those pre-built limits, however, and to make it worse they are echoing an echo. Whatever the true nature of the thing has long since been lost by that point, and that's where the rest of us starting going, "WTH?"

Still, if James was even remotely interested in that kind of kink, I think she'd know, since she even had Grey explain the concept of the "Red light, yellow light, green light" code words, that the safe word means stop.

[Foeofthelance]

Still, if James was even remotely interested in that kind of kink, I think she'd know, since she even had Grey explain the concept of the "Red light, yellow light, green light" code words, that the safe word means stop.

Again, imitation of the thing does not equate to understanding of the thing. James is looking at it as something thrilling, unusual, and daring. Its the novelty of it which enthralls her and the audience. They aren't looking at this as Standard Relationship; Type D Variant. It is a fantasy, an act, something that might be used for a special night's excitement, giggled over the next day, and then put back in the closet.Real people don't actually act this way. Grey goes through the whole safety spiel because that's what she's seen in other works of this nature and because that is what people tell her he should do; he then throws it all out the window because the entire fantasy behind the series is leaving your boundaries behind, even if you need to be pushed. It is all bound up by the rules of the Narrative. Grey can never actually hurt Anastasia, because that would be a bad ending to the book. There can be drama, of course, but the Happy Ending justifies the means.

Except real people do act this way. For a lot of people, it is just Standard Relationship; Type D Variant. And they look at this with horror, because it is all so, so terribly wrong. Not just wrong, but dangerously, misinformatively wrong.

[Ceiling_Squid]

No I think he/she would promote it. It's about abusive relationships and pushing your partner into sexual practises they aren't into and it satisfies a lot of women who on some level know that it isn't all that good.

No, even Slaanesh has standards. He/she is the patron Chaos god of artistic perfection as well.

Which this dreck ain't.

[The Glyphstone]

No, even Slaanesh has standards. He/she is the patron Chaos god of artistic perfection as well.

Which this dreck ain't.

Perfection taken to excess, specifically. Slaanesh, and Slaaneshi worshippers, are never satisfied with what they have, always seeking the newest and even more extreme sensation or experience, and when they find it, look for something even better.

So actually, Slaanesh would likely quite approve of FSoG, depressingly. It's a gateway drug into something more 'extreme' than generic vanilla, but is objectively rather awful. So having gotten the taste with the satisfaction of quality, those hooked by it would now, in a 40K environment, be driven to find even more deviant and thrilling ways to express themselves in the bedroom leading up to and beyond blood-soaked sacrificial demon summonings.


On the bright side, this means that the 40K equivalent of E.L. James was almost certainly executed by the Inquisition for Chaos worship.